[Conformance] Third Party Saturday Updates

Colleagues:

I have further updated our draft at:


Today's edits are:

1.)          Added an introductory clause to the beginning of the second paragraph in the Problem Statement so that it now reads:

"In addition to meeting specific conformance requirements on third party ... content which are to be enumerated in Guidelines' Outcomes (and in WCAG 3 testing),  this proposal attempts to develop the Conformance portion of more nuanced guidance for the web content publisher, ...";

2.)          Pulled all requirements for identifying native vs CMS, Etc. underlying tooling from the User Generated requirements, including the reference to "native" under Use Case A "Applying the proposal ..." section;

              I do think there is merit in gathering data on underlying tooling, but it's a separate topic that we can address separately, and it should not divert us now, imo            .

3.)          Capitalized MUST and SHOULD in keeping with similar content in the current heartbeat especially in the Conformance section.

PS: I checked. "Shall" currently appears nowhere in the heartbeat except where reliance on RFC2119 is specified, i.e. the term is available for use, but is not currently used.

PPS: Whether "SHALL" or "MUST" are correct is probably orthogonal to our current purpose. On reflection I also think Sarah's concern about the scope of our use of "content" is also orthogonal for the time being. Given the language in the AGWG Charter, given that "content" is no longer part of the definition of our specification's title, WCAG 3, it may prove important to review both of these usages, but the review should be systematized for the entire specification, not just our proposed subsection.

Best,

Janina


----------------------------------

Janina Sajka
Accessibility Standards Consultant
sajkaj@amazon.com<mailto:sajkaj@amazon.com>